You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
If I switch back to KDE4 the appearance of my screen _appears_ to be crisper. In most cases I'm only looking at a browser window (Firefox).
It's really just a subject thing. But, I notice it each time I switch. What I don't know if it's the composter in xfce4 vrs kde4, some preference settings, fonts, the way they interface with the nvidia card .... so many little things
So, can anyone point me in the right direction to pimp up the appearance of xfce? I'm not saying that xfce looks bad or anything like that. Just that kde appears to be cleaner.
Offline
What exactly do you mean by crisper? Better looking fonts? You can set AA on fonts and also increase the DPI from Menu-->Settings>--Appearance-->Fonts.
You can also make desktop labels transparent on the desktop by creating a text file in your home folder named .gtkrc-2.0
Paste this into it:
style "xfdesktop-icon-view" {
XfdesktopIconView::label-alpha = 0
}
widget_class "*XfdesktopIconView*" style "xfdesktop-icon-view"
Offline
Good question: "what's crisper".
That's why I was a little slippery in my original post. I'm just not sure what gives me the impression that the KDE presentation is "nicer".
I did compare the font settings. In both cases I have full pixel hinting RGB sub-pixel order. I have to admit that it takes looking at the screen very carefully with a loop to see any differences in sub-pixel on/off/order.
I suspect that what I'm seeing in my comparisons is just the overall appearance of the desktop theme.
Really, the rendering should be identical, should it not? Or is the way KDE implements its compositor somehow different from XFCE?
I should just accept that both are good, but different, and get on with life. Thanks.
Offline
May be post some screeshots ...
Xfce is NOT Xubuntu. Bugs in Xubuntu don't mean that Xfce is buggy ...
Offline
The thing with Kde is, it uses more system resources and was built with the idea of using desktop compositing all the time.They have always had a very robust desktop. I still miss some things about Kde 3.5, but Xfce can be modified quite a bit to look different if you miss Kde 3.5's flexibility.
Xfce is a wonderful balance. It's not naked like a window manager is, but it's also not loaded with a bunch of stuff I don't need either. It's brilliance is its usability. Something that Kde 4 and Gnome 3 have tossed out the window. It's especially useful on my netbooks where I can disable desktop compositing by unchecking a box to get better video performance.
Some people like the compiz or kwin stuff, but I far prefer the simple look. I just want my DE to be a useful tool. Which Xfce is.
Offline
Hey, I agree ... xfce is great. Which is why I only look at kde4
I agree that compiz is "too much" as well. But, I do miss the <zoom desktop> with compiz. I've got a fast enough computer to run compiz with xfce, but I can't get it to work properly. Perhaps the next version of xfce (or is it compiz) will get the marriage correct.
But, getting back to my original question ... I still think that kde4 presents a sharper image on the screen. And, I'm trying to ignore the eye-candy stuff. Just a simple web page in firefox often appears, to me, to be slightly sharper. Alas, this is very hard for me to quantify. I suspect that I'd need 2 identical system side by side ... and they I'd probably end up saying that they are identical. It could well be that the eye candy is fooling my eye into thinking that the actual browser contents are different.
Offline
If you say that you have different rendering in Firefox ... to compare, juste take screenshot of the same web page in kde and in xfce.
Xfce is NOT Xubuntu. Bugs in Xubuntu don't mean that Xfce is buggy ...
Offline
Other desktops sometimes set the "Xft.lcdfilter" property (possibly in ~/.Xresources). This only affects font (take a look at "xrdb -query").
Maybe (if you use another system, driver) and vga, you need to re-configure the monitor (press the auto-adjust button on the screen). Maybe it sounds silly, but hé, you never know ;-).
Offline
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.015 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 547.33 KiB (Peak: 548.17 KiB) ]